"How far should WW2 infantry move?" Topic

Not sure how to do the movement rates for my platoon/Company game.

Each base represents 3-4 men
Weapons have a common Close range of 60m
The idea is that ground and figure scale are the same/close

I don't have a set turn scale. Activation is card driven, not all units (section) will move in a turn due to end of turn card, though there is a 75% chance it will activate (50/50 on its own card, 50/50 on Platoon Leader's card, only activate once though).

I'm considering
20-30m in a turn- making a turn about 10 seconds
or
A Crossfire style pivot and move in a straight line, stopping once in cover.

Thoughts?

I'm leaning towards the 'straight dash' type, to simulate the 'run-stop-evaluate' environment.

6" – it's always 6".

Hmmm – You are UshCha and I claim my £5.00 GBP

From Safi to Trieste?

It should be 6" for all infantry in every game ever devised, regardless of scale.

That way I might get to play somebody who doesnt spend the entire game asking me how far such and such a figure moves…

I've always liked variable movement when it comes to WW2 or later combat. Troops tend to become a lot more cautious, and go to ground at the slightest real or perceived threat in the era of automatic weapons. Let the dice decide if they run for cover, or drop in the mud!

I don't think you can improve on the Crossfire method.

It should be 6" for all infantry in every game ever devised, regardless of scale.
That way I might get to play somebody who doesn't spend the entire game asking me how far such and such a figure moves…

<Chuckle>

That's the Wally Simon method of gaming. He mostly, but not always, used a 10-inch move for everything foot and when you reached other terrain, like woods, it was a 70% success roll to enter and finish your 10-inch movement. If you start in the woods (or swamp or mountain or…), you move the 10 inches until you get to another major terrain type and then it's 70% to move into the new terrain. What it lacks in nuance, it makes up for in simplicity. :)

I like variable movement but I do not like 2d6. 2" seems silly. What's the point? Every man in the squad moving across the flat level ground tripped? "Friction" is over-rated.

I like a flat rate for open, but a die roll for other terrain. But in the open 6" is good.

Movement should vary by troop quality. A group of paras could move faster for longer than regulars. I like 6" 8" 10" so they can actually get somewhere during the course of a normal length game. Cheers!

Friction" is over-rated.

Good man, let your robot armies roam free.

One well placed MG42 with squad nearby and the movement thought exits your mind while sheltered behind the BP cover…..till the NCO kicks your rear.

I think 2" represents a random shot somewhere nearby. Someone drops to cover in response. Everyone in the unit drops.
Wtf was that… Oh… No more fire… We carry on boss?

As currently written

Activating on its own card
A unit activated on its own card may
1. If in Command;
1.1. Move as desired

2. If not in Command;
2.1. Move directly forward
2.2. Pivot in place and move directly towards the nearest cover that does not take it closer to a revealed enemy.
2.3. Move directly towards its Leader.

A unit not in command and in cover may NOT move into the open, even if they are intending to move into cover by the end.

Activating on a Leader's card
When a unit activates on its Leader's card it may
• Take any action allowed as if activated on its own card, subject to the Command restrictions as noted above.
• 1 (and only one) Unit not in Command may move as though activated on its own card when in Command.
• The Leader may initiate an assault. Before moving an Assault MUST be declared. All units must be In Command (i.e. in Contact with the Leader, or In Contact of a Base that is in Command of the same Leader. The Leader must move with them and all assaulting units must be in command at the end of the movement. An assault is a movement into Contact with enemy Unit(s).
o A Unit that is unable to stay in Command stops 10cm short of the enemy, and does not participate in the Assault in any way- it does not add any dice to the Assault.
• It is permissible to carry out the same kind of movement as an Assault that does not end In Contact with the enemy- however in this case all units that started do not need to be in Command at the end of the move.

Unless taking part in an assault no unit may finish within 10cm and in Line Of Sight of a known enemy.

How to Move
After any allowed pivots a unit moves directly forward in the way it is facing until it reaches cover, at which point it stops.

A unit may stop at any point before it reaches cover.

Once it has finished moving it may pivot in any direction.

Grouped bases move one base as per the move rules – all other bases are then placed in contact with that base. They may face any direction.

They may have changed how they are touching. They may thus have moved in a way that if they had moved individually they could not have – this is fine, as long as the first base moves according to the rules, and they are all touching.

What counts as moving in or out of cover?
Here we trust the players to be sensible and reasonable. Basically a Base leaves cover when there is a change in the cover it is receiving.

So a unit behind, say, a hedge can move along the length of the hedge- it will continue to receive cover from that hedge, and as it is open on the other three sides the fact that it is open from those directions will not affect it.
HOWEVER if it then becomes under fire from an ‘open' side its movement will then count as being into the open. It thus cannot move to a position where it is still in the open to the firer. It may however dash for cover, as per 2.2 above.

Basically a Base not In Command will not increase its exposure/decrease the amount of cover, but may always move to increase the amount of cover. Remember it won't move into less cover on the way to more cover unless commanded to.

10cm ??

I would play a few games of Crossfire. Granted it may not be what you want in the end, it is not for me, however it is enlightening in showing alternatives and expands your horizons as to the art of the possible.

How far you move is a complex interaction between your movement rules and all the other rules. For example, If you go for a "fixed terrain" set of rule, the type used in competion/balenced points systems type games you are going to be far more restricted than in scenario games. You can't have terrain favoring one type allowing it to move freely while the other remains effectively static.

While this may happen in the real world, you cannot do this if you want a Tiger based Tank army for fight an infantry based army and have an even chance of winning. The points system dominates the type of moves you can make in this type of game.

PrivateSnafu:
I know you have some reasoning behind "friction is overrated"

I can see friction not effecting the movement of Banzai, Human Wave backed up by NKVD or a desperation break out like the Germans at Korsun Pocket.

I use an Aggressiveness Rating to move under fire but then only in 20m rushes.

Wolfhag

Re. friction:

Rolling a 2 on 2d6 would certainly be frustrating, but I still think the concept is a good one: anyone who has tried to move a body of men from A to B even on exercise conditions knows that things never go quite to plan.

That said, I would tend towards a more 'average' movement rate of 4+d6 or something.

1. 1d6+x For x=4" for green, 6" for regulars, and 8" for elite. If that's too far then drop everyone to 3,4,5'' (then expect mean of 6.5", 7.5" & 8.5" respectively). Adjust as necessary, YMMV. Everyone moves some, sometimes they move better, better troops usually move better.
2. 1dx+c For c= 3" or 4", and x= d4 for green, d6 for regulars, and d8 for elites. I don't like this, takes too long to pick out the right die and then after rolling there's still the "Oh yeah, he rolls an 8 not a 6" moment. Slows the game.
3. Some of our FLGS group games use The Ten Percent Rule. If a unit could make into cover by moving an extra ten percent it may. This house rule is ONLY used in friendly games.

" Activation is card driven"
I don't understand why people like to have the movement/actions of their armies driven by random events like card turns or dice. Perhaps they think it is more 'fun' that way?
I have seen full army activation as in Warhammer and it gives too much advantage to one army over the other. But alternate unit activation's work well. Perhaps with limitations on what the units can do based on their current orders.

I think people like card activation and friction because it represents the unpredictability of warfare.
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy"
I now find playing set igo ugo in any form quite boring especially in big games where everything just seems to become rote.
I like having to adapt to circumstances. Thinking on your feet.

Activation and Movement mechanics make the game go, so, to me, anything that inhibits these two mechanics makes the game stop.

Random unit activation in a two-player game is just fine because you usually do not have to wait too long to do something. Random unit activation in a big multi-player game is painful because you often could be waiting a looong time before your card or chit gets pulled…

I guess that should include 'fixed' activations by faction (I'm thinking Axis and Allies boardgame here, where players move in a specific order) in the painful category.

Now, if you also have to roll for movement, that's often a double whammy. You finally get to activate and then, Oh, I'm sorry, bad roll. That maneuver you did two turns ago with that elite unit is no longer valid. Try again next turn. Or worse, ooops, blown roll, entire turn over, whether you've moved other units or not.

Friction is all well and good, but in our group, WE don't need no stinkin' die roll for friction! We're maneuvering-challenged all by our lonesome. :)

Still, if a player isn't doing something every turn, AND doing something meaningful (advancing on objective, threatening/protecting flank, etc), then there's really no point. I've played many systems where the mechanics made me or other players sit…and sit…and twiddle our thumbs as the game played on.

Friction-wise, you've got (at least) missile rolls, and melee rolls, and morale rolls -- you don't need movement rolls that can prevent you from coming into contact to perform the other rolls. Plenty of randomness in three of the four "M" rolls.

My solution would be to alter the movement mechanic to ban all movement rolls. We've tried it on at least one system and it worked like a charm -- faster-moving game, more involvement by players, and just as many decision points as watching the grass grow beneath your troops' feet.

I think the unpredictability of cards works well for low scale such as this – I'm trying to replicate the quick dashes, the difficulty co-ordinating once men are away from the platoon leader.

As I said above 'Close' range is 60m, with close combat range at 20m – If I go for measured rather than 'Crossfire' style I'm thinking 40m moves, so about 10-20 seconds a turn
- 10 – 15kph for the men running in short dashes.

I think the unpredictability of cards works well for low scale such as this

But the first question you should ask yourself in a set o rules, is why bother? Seems to me that you are trying to make a mechanism work that serves no purpose.
Your running speed would be right for someone in running shoes and sports gear. But remember your subjects are; carrying weapons, probably a pack, wearing a steel helmet in heavy clothes, probably heavy smokers and travelling cross-country, I would tone down the running speed a bit.

I think people like card activation and friction because it represents the unpredictability of warfare.

People can like what they want but it does not mean it is valid. You want to represent friction with the enemy, then fine do so (usually thats by being fired at). But having cards/dice slowing or removing the possibly to simply walk down a road with no enemy around is insane. I appreciate this idea of 'friction' is a current fad but it needs to be justified, even is it is simply, 'it makes the game fun'.

Excellent comments re random activation. It both slows down games and introduces a very abstract mechanic. I have a column of units but the middle unit in the column randomly activates but can't move because unit in front hasn't activated…and many other issues.

But the commonly used alternative – one side goes and other sits around watching has drawbacks.

Fortunately we have the integrated sequence of play (first pioneered by John Hill, refined by Frank Chadwick and used in games as varied as X-Wing and Combat Command). Its fairly simple: both sides give orders then you have joint movement phase (who moves first is determined by troop quality), then a joint fire phase (who fires first depends on move/stationary and then troop quality). So both sides interact but you can move several units at once etc.

Solves the problems of both random activation and yougo/Igo.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games

I'll have to agree with Russ and VVV reply on this one because it's how I do it.

I think what we may be discussing is the difference between "design for cause" and "design for effect"
link

If you are attempting to portray a historical event or a large scale action the "design for cause" is the way to go according to the author. I tend to agree as I've designed games that will most likely generate a specific historical outcome.

He claims using "design for effect" is almost impossible to do. However, I am a "design for effect" guy for a game that simulates a small scale action of up to 5 minutes. I'm not claiming any historical accuracy for a particular scenario. For me, it's about what effect different weapons systems and tactics will have in a game and how the player's decisions will affect their use.

If you are playing a game that is mostly "design for effect" with abstracted turn lengths (no timing) and a limited number of game turns (6-10) I can see where you'd need to have some abstracted way to include movement friction as it fits the "design for effect" model. If the game is mostly abstracted for time and scale you can justify almost any other abstraction of fire or movement to justify the cause. Just adjust to your liking and level of detail and playability.

However, if you have a game that has a finite turn length like 30-90 seconds (timing)you can more or less simulate historical movement rates (D=MPH x T) with varying degrees of enemy induced friction and SNAFU's making it somewhat unpredictable. Total prediction is not fun either. You can go into the detail of what caused the effect rather than abstract the cause and show just the overall effect. Does this make sense?.

The amount and type of Friction generated depend on the time and scale too.

Example: Moving a motorized battalion 5+ miles over varying terrain that has not had a route recon is going to present many problems and the movement will most likely not go according to the plan. The unknowns, breakdowns and the terrain itself will generate the "friction" without the need for enemy intervention. A route recon would eliminate many of the unknowns but not all of them. It could take from 30 minutes to 5+ hours to move 5 miles. You could simulate how far you'd move with one die roll which would be a "design for cause".

A "design for effect" would break down movement to 5-minute segments and see how successful you are with specific effects like breakdowns, washed out bridges, traffic jams, etc causing the delay and creating the friction. You would not want to do this for a large scale game.

Moving an infantry squad in a 30-90 second turn without enemy interference is pretty predictable. The friction will mostly come from enemy fire and field obstacles. They could end up being pinned down for the rest of the game or successfully fire and maneuver to attack the enemy or get out of their LOS within a few turns. It's not exactly random but you would see the causes of the friction and not just abstract the effect.

I've seen players indicate that they like to simulate the pure "chaos" of battle where nothing goes according to plan, units fail to activate and game turns can magically end before you even get a chance to participate for the turn. They have fun with it. I think that's an example of "design for cause".

My opinion: There's room for both ways depending on the scale and time frame that you like to portray in a game.

Wolfhag

Moving an infantry squad in a 30-90 second turn without enemy interference is pretty predictable.

You have it, walking across a field or down a road is fairly predictable.
Running into a minefield would change that.
As for making every movement unpredictable, its unrealistic and putting the cart (minority of accidents that could happen) before the horse (what happens most of the time).
Traffic jams easy, double or triple the number of units that are going to move down a given road and watch an in game traffic jam. Perfectly illustrating the point that a quart does not fit into a pint pot.
IGo, UGo has it as the popular game play system at the moment. And doing it by units, works well. Simple but effective (and simplicity has a lot to recommend it). One of the books I used for my research (it may have been Closing with the Enemy) described little groups of soldiers going forward, finding something that blocked their advance and either sorting it themselves or waiting for something that could. Meanwhile, around them other groups of soldiers continued on with their objectives.
Does better quality/experienced units (and vice versa) make a difference? you betcha.

I promise that when I'm simulating men marching down a road with few worries about the enemy I won't use cards.

I promise that when I'm simulating men marching down a road with few worries about the enemy I won't use cards.

Excellent. Or indeed variable movement rolls either :)
But I was thinking more about it and I wondered what historical basis rules writers have for their card/dice driven movement?
Most armies seemed to practice operations and have the results assessed, so to do movement randomly does seem strange.

I look at moving under enemy fire as a "risk-reward" decision by the player. The distance moved is variable but not random and cannot be guaranteed because of friction generated by the enemy.

The main factors are enemy firepower, degraded by the suppressive fire that determines a causality rate. The further you move the higher your causalities will be. The shorter the distance the lower they will be. Units not under fire can move their max movement rate.

This is how I'm handling infantry advancing under fire:

Suppressive fire decreases the enemy firepower against you letting you take a bigger chance to move further while under fire. If the enemy fire shows your causality rate will be too high and you don't want to risk moving then you are basically pinned down. Let it be the player's decisions, not the dice.

All units are considered active (I hate activations) with moving units marked as moving. Then units not moving direct their fire towards moving enemy units. Then any units not moving or firing yet can provide suppressive fire against the enemy units directing their fire against their moving units. I guess you could call that an orders phase.

First, determine the results of suppressive fire and see how much it degrades the firepower against the friendly moving units. Advancing under enemy fire will produce a "causality rate" depending on the firepower and distance moved. If enemy firepower is too great to risk an advance the unit is considered "pinned down" and the attack can bog down needing additional reinforcements or more suppressive fire.

Next, all moving units determine how far they'll move and determine their causalities based on the causality rate. That would end the turn.

I think this is a good portrayal of "friction" and puts the player into the equation with his decisions determining the risks and rewards and not random die rolls. Movement is not random nor is it guaranteed.

Wolfhag

I look at moving under enemy fire as a "risk-reward" decision by the player. The distance moved is variable but not random and cannot be guaranteed because of friction generated by the enemy.

My point is that some rules have the variability built in whether the enemy is there or not.
How much firing a unit can do is indeed one of the things that rules should consider. A WW2 infantry unit on the move only carries around 5 minutes of ammo firing at full effect. So how much speculative fire would you allow for. Seems the US soldier was not keen on it.
Moving and being shot at is another matter to consider. An enemy unit moves, do all the defenders get to shoot at it or there is a limit. For playabilty, personally I limit the reaction to an enemy unit moving/firing to one unit of the other side, otherwise advancing would be impossible. Obviously the enemy should be suppressed (as we were taught to do) before you attempt to assault their position.

For moving in a non-threat environment, I allow players to issue a move order. That allows them to make 3 moves in an activation but no spotting or shooting, just pure movement. Only problem is that a unit carries on with its order until; order is changed/cancelled or the unit fails a morale test. So best off not to have units with Move orders too close to the enemy.

VVV Reply, our fast move is similar, no shooting or spotting, limits on the rate of turn and all he'll breaks lose if you try or are forced to terminate it. It can result in an unholy mess. Plus enemy is unlikely to miss. Therefore generally only done if the enemy is unable to intervene.

Random movement isn't necessarilly all about the moving unit. It can represent the enemy acting unexpectedly quickly. Your men aren't moving slower. The enemy got the drop on you.

I do think it's more appropriate to combat situations.

Arguably, all those units on the table are in a combat situation once shooting starts and stress levels hike up.

Random movement isn't necessarilly all about the moving unit. It can represent the enemy acting unexpectedly quickly.

But if the enemy is nowhere near (as in the above), why the random move?
I think I am saying that a set of rules should not just have delays built into the fundamentals of the game, with no reason of the delays/absence of units. But I appreciate that appears to be popular currently. Giving the public what they want, is a good thing.
I must admit that I don't see the entire table as under fire, just the bits that enemy fire can reach, so there are areas that the enemy can move freely.

Conclusion

For me, the trick is to design for Effect so that the game can resemble history, yet design a good game, a friendly competition. SPI games were often criticized as poor games. This is not so surprising, when SPI expected half the players to be playing solitaire, where competition does not matter.

The reason sweep of history games such as Britannia are singled out for criticism is because the "for Effect" is so obvious in how the victory points are allocated, and because it's particularly impractical to design "for Cause" on a scale of generations.

Yet "for Effect" is just as obvious (to me) in any game that models a single battle, we just accept it there because there's certainly no other practical way to do it.

The bottom line here is that history is in considerable part a very complex accident, and if that is so, a game that truly reflects history will rarely follow a course that appears to be much like "the real history". We need to recognize that historical games are models, constructs, that cannot come close to accurately modeling history, and even if they did, the result wouldn't LOOK like history. If we accept that, we'll avoid many pitfalls, we'll be able to make better games, AND we'll be able to make more games that educate, than we do now.

Wolfhag:

Interesting article. Lewis Pulsipher's idea of designing for 'effect' sounds a lot like creating events instead of environment.

If a simulation designer was asked this question about WWII infantry movement [on foot??--which nation's army?] he or she would:

1. Describe the scale and historical parameters [from what year to what year?]

2. Generate examples of infantry movement at the chosen scale. [At least 30-50 or more]

3. Generate a statistical set of parameters and using that determine how a. Terrain effected movement, b. different nation's average movement varied, c. Determine the rate at which random events occurred, what kinds and how often in what circumstances.

4. TEST the system I create around those statistics to see if they match historical actions.

That is the way you approach capturing the reality involved for a simulation and wargame. That is the way you circumscribe the complexity of reality.

Tabletop wargame designers aren't trying to recreate a single battle, but the battlefield environment applicable to any battle of the target era like WWII.

As an example, if attempting to recreate the action on specific freeway or a number of freeways in a specific year, the designers wouldn't randomly pick a number for the speed and the number of accidents that could randomly occur and talk about how the resulting simulation has the right 'feel.'

The designers would determine the number of cars, speeds and how many accidents occur on average over a period of time AND where. The speeds and accidents rarely occur randomly all over the freeway. There are places that will have a larger number than others.

Statistics reveal that random complexity. They can reveal how fast WWII infantry *should* move.

The question about "How far should WW2 infantry move?" in a wargame is a statistical question based on history. There are many different kinds of game mechanisms *could* represent that data once it is collected. Without that methodology, determining how far WWII infantry should move is a guessing game, just an "I like" question of what 'feels good'.

If that floats your boat, terrific. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it has anything to do with recreating/representing history.

The bottom line here is that history is in considerable part a very complex accident, and if that is so, a game that truly reflects history will rarely follow a course that appears to be much like "the real history". We need to recognize that historical games are models, constructs, that cannot come close to accurately modeling history, and even if they did, the result wouldn't LOOK like history.

Lewis Pulsipher may believe that, but that isn't anything a simulation designer would think, let alone say. That is wonky 'old school' wargame design beliefs writ large.

Models come close to 'modeling history' they are designed to represent or they aren't models at all.

Here is one discussion of that question based on US Army Statistical studies.

link

I am working on the question for the Napoleonic wars. First of all, just like WWII, military men wanted to know the same question: How fast *should* infantry move?

And to discover the answer [a historical answer], the process is the same. You find any number of military men during the Napoleonic wars giving their opinions on the subject…opinions that have life-and-death practicality. Dundas for instance, gives the average/predicted pace of a line of battalions in line over even ground at @60 yards per minute… under artillery fire.

That is one source. The next is to collect examples to create a statistical base: Here is a very small sample as an illustration from the battle of Austerlitz:

Austrian Advance Guard—Kienmeyer
This column started near Augezd after 6:30am and opened the battle against Tellnitz about 7:30. The distance between Kienmeyer's camp and Tellnitz is around 1.8 miles. [1.8 mph] This included deployment from all accounts.

1st Allied Column—Doctorov
This column started on the heights about 2/3rds of a mile west of Hostierack. It had been held up by Lichtenstein's cavalry re-positioning, so didn't get off until between 7:30 and 8:00. It reach Tellnitz by marching south through Aujezd to come in behind Kienmeyer and the battle between 9:00 and 9:30. They covered about 3.4 miles in something like 1.5 hours [ 2.2 mph ]

2nd Allied Column—Langeron
Delayed by Lichtenstein's move, began moving @ 7:45 from a position between Pratzenburg and Hostieradek towards it goal, Solkolnitz more than 2.5 miles away by the route they took near Aujezd. They arrived @ 9:00am.
[2.4 mph]

3rd Allied Column—Przbyswski
Positioned behind Pratzenburg, the column was supposed to cross the Goldbach just north of Solkolnitz. This column was also delayed by the cavalry column but moved by 7:30. It reached its destination four kilometers or 2.5 miles away by 9am, 1.5 hours. That was considered slow at the time. The frozen terrain turned to mud during the march and roads had to be repaired. [1.6 mph]

5th Allied Column—Millodorich
This column began about ˝ mile from Krzenowitz. Kutuzov held it until between 8:00 and 8:30am to let the cavalry jam clear. This column crossed the Pratzen heights and reached Pratzenburg by 9:30, more than two miles distant. [2 mph]

That is an average of 2 miles per hour. with a range of 1.6 to 2.4

Vandamme and St. Hilaire's Divisions
These divisions were released about 8:45 once the Allied 2nd and 3rd Columns cleared the Pratzen Heights. by 9:30 they were in engaged by Millodorich's 4th column. They had to cross the Goldbach in battle array and in 45 minutes had crossed about two miles of terrain. [2.5 mph]

Now, obviously the starting and ending points for those marches are rough, even though the times and distances are based on maps and contemporary estimations. The nice thing about such soft data is that with enough examples, such variables fade into the background.

With the above you can see three things:

1. There was an average pace of 2 miles per hour or about 60 yards a minute.

2. The French moved at the fasted rate demonstrated by the Allies: 70 yards per minute.

3. The 3rd Column got caught in mud and had to wait for engineers to fix a path for the column. They traveled at 46 yards per minute.
**********************
IF after gathering one hundred examples of movement like this, AND the same data held true statistically I have strong evidence for how fast Napoleonic infantry *should* travel, how much faster experienced, well trained troops should travel [About 25% faster on average 2.0 vs 2.5] and how slow troops should move through rough terrain [about 20% slower 1.6 vs 2.0]

Now this is an example of how it might work with enough data points. six aren't anywhere close to that.

The last thing is to test: see if playing out a battle just as it happened, these movement rates allow units to get to where they did historically.

Few designers do this kind of testing from what I have seen, basically because of the tabletop restrictions. For instance, with the original Fire & Fury the movement rates were so slow that in the Picketts Charge scenario, the Confederates needed an hour and a half scale game time to move the distance the original divisions moved in 20 minutes.

This method isn't perfect, but it is a damn sight closer to history than guessing or ignoring the issue altogether.

McLaddie,
My method is to take the info from the manual and AAR's to get the ideal movement rate. However, enemy action, friction and SNAFU's will generally keep units from ideal movement rates. I like to reflect on the game WHAT is slowing them down rather than randomizing it.

Wolfhag

PrivateSnafu:
I know you have some reasoning behind "friction is overrated"

I can see friction not effecting the movement of Banzai, Human Wave backed up by NKVD or a desperation break out like the Germans at Korsun Pocket.

I use an Aggressiveness Rating to move under fire but then only in 20m rushes.

Wolfhag

Good games use the right amount of randomness to make them fun. That is my most important criteria, fun. Everyone has a different sense of fun so each has a tolerance for randomness level.

If friction is introduced through randomness and friction is deemed to be fun then it stands to reason that the more randomness the more fun.

It's just not the case. It's pudding. Dessert is awesome, three helpings of it is not.

My method is to take the info from the manual and AAR's to get the ideal movement rate. However, enemy action, friction and SNAFU's will generally keep units from ideal movement rates. I like to reflect on the game WHAT is slowing them down rather than randomizing it.

Wolfhag:

There are military studies that address those questions, but again it is a statistical question.

First of all, if you have an average movement rate that includes those SNAFUs--on average. That is average,not idea. My example above gives me a variable movement rate over even or slowly rising ground, 1.8 to 2.5. That is the range if you wanted to have a 'varialbe movement rate' including those chance events.

If you have enough examples statistically, there will be those slower rates [as with my example above], you will then have 'averages' for those rates affected by different terrain features, enemy presence etc. That's the approach that the Military takes and it certainly is the way simulation designers approach the issues you mention.

When does it happen, How does it happen, Where does it happen, How often does it happen. All those questions can be answered by statistical analysis. The 'Why' takes more work in looking at those examples, but can be extrapolated too.

McLaddie,
I'm not sure if I explained myself. I'm trying to recreate variable based on factors that affect a known distance but not random distances or attempt to recreate an "average" based on statistical analysis.

The only statistical analysis I'm concerned with is a base movement rate over different terrain in a particular formation (mainly march column versus tactical). Modern movement is based on a particular cadence so can be measured pretty accurately. I've experienced all of these myself.

We have increased the speed of forced marches but it ends up stringing everyone out. Tactical in the woods is extremely slow because you need to keep the flanks linked up and it is noisy too.

Tactical movement through dense woods, deep mud, etc would be variable or somewhat randomized as you suggested even without interference from the enemy. Poor terrain and observation create its own set of "friction".

Enemy fire would force a march column to deploy into a tactical formation taking time and slowing additional movement. The ability of a tactical formation to move under fire is going to be somewhat variable depending on players decisions and other factors. I don't consider that random unless you want to represent it as random. Even if there is an average I would not use it in a small scale game but in larger scales, it would be valid.

You could have an "average rate of advance" in a large battle covering a few days but that's different than small-scale tactical.

I'm not aware of studies that show the movement rates affected by the enemy fire. Even if there is an "average" at the lower level tactical I'm working on most likely no movement will conform to the "average" because there are so many variables combined with player decisions and enemy fire.

I understand you can boil all of this down to a statistical study to get an "average rate" but that's not what I'm trying to recreate at my level. In a game with a higher level like battalions and higher and turns of 1+ hour, I'll agree with your variable movement rate statement.

Troop movements in the 1800's would be different so I'll bow to your knowledge in that area.

Wolfhag

variable based on factors that affect a known distance

Wolfhag:

Well, obviously I didn't make myself clear either. The only way you can find that variable in a reasonable manner [read close to reality] is statistically.

Tell me what that 'known distance' is, the scale you are focused on and the factors you want included and I'll explain.

McLaddie,
My discussion on this is mostly limited to tactical infantry movement in a small scale/skirmish battle environment that would historically take about 5-10 minutes. I'm using a scale of 1" = 25m on a 6-9 foot table for combined arms games and 1" = 5m for infantry engagements.

Info from the manuals:
Squad/Team Rush: 3.0m/second or 6.7mph
Squad/fire team rush with an evasive movement of 30m with a suppressive fire element covering them. A player could make it shorter and avoid potential causalities so it could be variable.

Double Time: 2.7m/second or 6.1mph
Used when the unit is not under enemy fire or the fire is light enough not to use team rushes. They can be in a column or tactical. I'm sure you've seen the video footage of Russian infantry jogging along next to a T-34, that's what it is simulating.

Forced March: 1.8m/second or 4mph
Used for movement to contact when not under fire. Must be in a column

Quick Time: 1.5m/second or 3.4mph
Used for movement to contact or strategic movement (mostly outside of the game) when not under fire. Must be in a column. This would also be the rate used for "Marching Fire".

Depending on the time frame, Double Time, Forced March and Quick Time would be pretty predictable across good terrain. Poor terrain would eliminate Double Time and Forced March and most likely be variable from 0.25m/second to 1.0m/second speed.

Using these figures you could get a variable "rate of advance" for larger games but that's not what I'm simulating.

Any insights or recommendations appreciated.

Wolfhag

I'll be glad to help. I need to clarify some things though:

1. Do you accept the movement distances/time given in the manuals as stated--meaning as an average/expected performance or ideal? [Your choice]

2.The rush and double time can't be maintained for very long, so how long do the manuals say they last. Depending on the time frame, Double Time, Forced March and Quick Time would be pretty predictable across good terrain. [which is and why?] Poor terrain would eliminate Double Time [don't assume unless the manuals say that] and Forced March and most likely be variable from 0.25m/second to 1.0m/second speed.

3. Are we talking WWII European battlefield?

4. What leads you to feel these movement rates aren't helpful or that you need more? [Have you compared them to some historical examples?]

The idea is to collect 50+ examples from the period of the same size units over different terrain in the time spans of your game design.

IF you want to see the differences between say British, US, Russian and German [or Italian etc.] performance, you need to have at least 30 examples of each. Is that possible for you?

I used as the basis for my ideas about movement, several years of experience in the British army. On various exercises, some lasting 2 days and in one case 2 weeks.
It also gave me ideas about visibility as well.
Then in civilian life I have walked through deserts, up hills and on snow (sometimes with skis, sometimes not).
In the army we would be travelling with 2 days of rations in our packs, a rifle and perhaps 80 rounds of ammo but no tin helmets :)
Mostly in my early 20's. I cannot say that I timed any of it, so just have a feel for it. Similarly in my later years I have been walking across muddy (and not so muddy) fields and crossing barbed wire fences and trying not to get caught in them, all whilst carrying a gun and maybe 50 rounds of ammo.

McLaddie,

Question 1: Yes
I checked and these are standards that the Marine Corps currently use so there should be hundreds of examples every month. I think most other services have about the same standard. In an infantry unit, 90%+ can make the march.

Question 2:
Recon Ruck Run: 8 miles 60 lbs at 15 mins per mile through trails, hills and beach at Camp Pendleton. My son did 9 miles in 1 hour and 45 minutes (5mph) at the same place during his Recon tryout and finished first. That was a test for time, not in a formation. I think that shows you can have a small unit move at 5mph for at least a few hours. I'd consider this above average and most of a line infantry could not maintain a rate above 4mph. I've tried to keep up with guys going that fast and I couldn't.

12-miles long in under 3 hours while carrying 45 pounds for a 15-minute mile. This would be about average. We used to do 20 miles in about 6 hours with a 5-10 minute break every hour with full packs, rations, rifle and helmet. I also carried a PRC-25 radio with batteries and had to follow the LT around. We'd have the Platoon spread out with some stragglers that would catch up when we took a break.

Marches in the past go from Alexander the Great at 16 miles per day to 1800's European armies of 14-15 miles per day, but that's a large scale strategic troop movement. Zulus 50 miles a day. Stonewall Jackson 2mph for 2-3 days. I really don't think that's changed much in modern day armies.

Members of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment marched 56 miles over the Falkland Isles' rough terrain, carrying 80 pounds each, in just under three days to take Port Stanley back. The famous "Band of Brothers", Easy Company, did a march of 115 miles in 3 days.

Thomas Jackson (Stonewall) marched his entire corps 38 miles in one day to get around Union general Hooker's flank at Chancellorsville. He started well before sunup and didn't get there until about dusk, with barely one-fourth of his corps. There rest dropped out due to straggling and exhaustion.

Claudius Nero dragged six thousand men over 336 miles in six days to defeated Hasdrubal and then marched back up Italy to face off with Hannibal. The march down the peninsula must have been achieved in an incredible 45 miles a day. No info on the drop out rate.

Question 3: Northern Europe could be quite varied. The forced march rate above is on fairly well-kept dirt trails. As I stated terrain can significantly slow rates down to 1 mph or less.

Question 4:
I'd consider the strategic movement of large bodies of troops outside the game I'm simulating. However, it does prove a combat laden Platoon can double time across a 3000m table without suffering any real ill effects in about 40 minutes.

That's under ideal conditions. In a game, it gets interesting when the terrain becomes a problem and the enemy takes you under fire. I don't know if you could come up with a formula for a movement rate against enemy fire on a small scale or skirmish battle. These rates do not include stopping for compass readings and land navigation.

So the bottom line is I like taking the ideal and apply the different modifiers that reflect friction and unknowns.

I've read about systems that randomize movement to abstract different "unknowns" and attempt to come up with an explanation. Like for movement, you roll 2D6+4 and three times in a row you roll Snake Eyes. Various "explanations" could be they hit bad terrain, they thought they saw a minefield, someone got hurt, the LT was confused, etc. That's fine but I want a finite cause to be the effect.

A movement rate at a sprint of 30m or less would allow everyone to stay together. IIRC, during a fire & movement drill with 3x alternating teams in a squad about every 10 seconds, you'd get up and rush, hit the deck and then provide covering fire while the other teams did the same. Rugby practice was more difficult.

So I guess the bottom line that I'm looking at is there is no "average" movement or rate of advance in a small unit combat engagement. Strategic movement is a different animal. I'm kind of on the same page as VVV Reply using much of my own experience.

Wolfhag

So I guess the bottom line that I'm looking at is there is no "average" movement or rate of advance in a small unit combat engagement.

You are asking what small units can do under different conditions… what a commander can expect from his troops, something critical to planning and execution. would a US WWII infantry commander of a small unit expect his troops to perform like a Marine recon group?

We are asking about what troops DID under combat conditions in WWII, so that has to be the focus. Of course there would be variables… and we can come up with 'averages' under various conditions… and we can come up with ranges of performance too.

No one can do anything but guess unless we get down to actual examples to generate any conclusions for 'realistic' performances.

I used as the basis for my ideas about movement, several years of experience in the British army. On various exercises, some lasting 2 days and in one case 2 weeks.
It also gave me ideas about visibility as well.

There is nothing wrong with that approach if you want the game about WWII combat performances to be based on your experience alone. It certainly would narrow the parameters of unit performance on the tabletop. However… one person's experience in the military several decades after WWII may or may not be descriptive of that era.

As non-military example. I have driven the freeways in California and 20 other states over the years. I can base a simulation of driving the I-405 in LA between the years 1956-60 on my experience alone decades later, but is it reasonable to assume my experience will match most other drivers' during that time? Maybe, but maybe not. We would have to test that assumption.

Wolfhag, I'll explain in the next post.

McLaddie,
Here is the best example I could find about infantry movement in combat and expectations of success. It has historical and current info and tactics.
PDF link

Not surprisingly, it states that success in the assault depends on suppressive fire. Good suppressive fire will allow successful fire & maneuver of the assault unit.

For me, in game terms, successful suppressive fire means successful 30m rushes like the manual states. Go further than that and you risk additional causalities. Go less than 30m means fewer causalities but being under fire longer. That's a risk-reward tactic for the player to decide.

Based on the conclusions of the article (% chance of success) you could come up with an average of success which could be very valuable in a game with turns of 1-2 minutes in length.

I hope you are not driving the 405 in LA anymore. It's a parking lot at even at 2am.

Wolfhag